NRC Problems

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lowers safety standards in order to keep old nuclear power plants, such as San Onofre, operating. 

The NRC planned to lower a significant safety standard that would make it easier for SoCal Edison to restart their defective San Onofre Unit 2 nuclear reactor.

Instead of their mission of “protecting people and the environment”, their priority appears to be “protecting nuclear industry profits”.

“… the NRC is required, by law, to recover about 90 percent of our budget authority directly from the industry that we regulate…  The NRC received a bit more than $1 billion for FY 2012, so the amount we will recover in fees by Sept. 30 is approximately $909.5 million. We collect those fees and send the money back to the U.S. Treasury.”

Arlette Howard, NRC Fee Policy Analyst

See also Federal Register: Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2012

“This happened June 4th, 1998. That’s the day the NRC even stopped pretending to be an aggressive regulator. The Senate Appropriations Committee was headed by former Senator Pete Domenici from New Mexico.”

David Lochbaum, Director of Nuclear Safety Project, Union of Concerned Scientists

There are many dedicated employees at the NRC doing the best they can under these circumstances.  However, the following reports are examples of why we cannot count on the NRC to protect us.

Government Reports

Aging Nukes: A four-part investigative series by Jeff Donn, Associated Press (APWire), April 16, 2012

Other Sources


8 Responses to NRC Problems

  1. Pingback: Regulatory Meltdown – Four NRC Commissioners Undermine Safety | San Onofre Safety

  2. Pingback: Regulatory Meltdown – Four NRC Commissioners Undermine Safety | San Onofre Safety

  3. Pingback: San Onofre to push more power with turbine upgrades – is this safe? | San Onofre Safety

  4. Pingback: Edison says they have ample reserve power without San Onofre | San Onofre Safety

  5. Nuclear Spumoni says:

    Thank you for providing an excellent list of articles which can be resourced under other articles which concern the welfare and safety of nuclear energy.

    1. “What if you were promoting an industry that had the potential to kill and injure enormous numbers of people as well as contaminate large areas of land for tens of thousands of years? What if this industry created vast stockpiles of deadly waste but nevertheless required massive amounts of public funding to keep it going? My guess is that you might want to hide that information.”

    “In response, the nuclear industry and its supporters have employed sophisticated press manipulation to move the public conversation away from these thorny issues.”

    Read more:

    2. Nuclear power could be safe, if designed and operated correctly. Neither the nuclear industry or government regulators care about safety.

  6. Pingback: Danger: Aging Nuclear Reactors | San Onofre Safety


    The Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science; via A Green Road Blog

    Radioactive Beach In Guarapari, Brazil; via A Green Road Blog

    93 Long life Radiation Contaminants; via A Green Road Blog

    Tokyo; is it safe to live in or visit? via A Green Road Blog

    Fukushima Lies Movie Part I and II; via A Green Road Blog; via A Green Road Blog

    Fukushima; Today’s Titantic and Costa Concordia; via A Green Road Blog

    On 3/11; 15 Nuclear Reactors In Japan Were Damaged, Not 3 or 4

  8. Pingback: Edison’s safety plan to restart San Onofre is to watch for radiation leaks | San Onofre Safety

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s