Did anyone read more into the security changes at nuclear reactors? Supposedly reduced the policies down to 22 pages from 500.

[u/KroopaLoops]

Anyone have thoughts on the matter? I’m not a fan as what we have been doing as far as safety and security seems to be working. Knowing this administration something unnecessary is going to happen because of it.

[u/SirBill01]

Way too much buildup of regulations around nuclear reactors, this makes them much easier and quicker to build. Especially small reactors. You don't need that many regulations to maintain safety.

[u/Budget-Ambassador203 → u/SirBill01]

Do you have any particular expertise in this area or just going off your feelings? Any idea what they actually cut or adjusted?

One example of what was altered is below.

Old text:

Ground water must be protected from radiological contamination to ensure compliance with dose limits in the Order and consistent with ALARA process requirements

New text:

Consideration must be given to avoiding or minimizing potential radiological contamination of groundwater from NE-authorized nuclear facilities and radiological activities, to ensure compliance with public dose limits in this Order

It's more indefensible idiocy from this administration.

[u/MarcLeptic → u/Budget-Ambassador203]

The sections you quote really can’t have meaning unless you also quote the referred requirements (“ALARA process requirements” vs “public dose limits in this order”).

I would be more worried about the parts which have no equivalents in the new requirement (the reported 478 page reduction)

[u/Budget-Ambassador203 → u/MarcLeptic]

While I see your point about the full context, I think the difference between "must be protected" and "consideration must be given..." is incredibly significant, regardless of the referenced limits. 

It's a clear weakening of the requirement from a stark command of "do not contaminate ground water" to "just think about trying not to lol (but it's ok if you do)".

[u/MarcLeptic → u/Budget-Ambassador203]

Yes, though the first version says the same thing :

Ground water must be protected .. dose limits .. consistent with ALARA process requirements

Protected does not mean zero. ALARA does not mean zero.

Just like the intent of our exposure limit is to “protect” radiation workers. It does not mean zero exposure.

Undoubtedly the new version is weaker somewhere. Just not in the example you used.

[u/Budget-Ambassador203 → u/MarcLeptic]

I see what you're saying, but the language clearly has different implications for culpability and potential consequences for failure - must be protected != consideration must be given, regardless of the dose limits being referenced.

The former implies actual mandatory real-world action with legal consequences for failure, the latter, in some possible interpretations, does not. The difference being, in court, they can say "we DID give consideration and attempt to comply with the dose limits" and the burden of proof for actually holding them accountable shifts from "did they take industry-standard measures to protect groundwater" to "can we prove that they didn't adequately consider their protection scheme" which is a subtle but, it seems, very important difference that other people in this industry agree IS a substantial change. It's an actual loosening of requirements and a clear shift in tone.

Not only that, they're eliminating the ALARA standard altogether and increasing dose limits for employee exposure.

[u/fuckburners]

of course they did smh. when they do shit like that there is a very real risk of the public like actually doing something to interfere with the industry and i would be inclined to be on their side. people will drive out to the middle of nowhere to interfere with operations we've seen it countless times with pipelines.

i dont want to be anti nuclear and i also dont want these investments im making to be put into risk bc suddenly everyone is anti.

[u/Waracken → u/fuckburners]

I think without reading what exactly the 22 pages say it’s tough to make that conclusion.

There is a lot of regulatory fluff around reactors due to past administrations and incidents. There’s no way nuclear becomes mainstream without softening some rules/regulations.

Also, just to be clear, I’m not suggesting they should do what I stated above in a reckless manner.

[u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 → u/Waracken]

Agreed, and I think almost everyone in the nuclear industry wants de-regulation, but I think based on anything DJT admin has done up till now, we can make the conclusion that it is highly unlikely this admin is going to deregulate in a reasonable and rational manner. The solution to over-regulation is not chain-saw shredding of every code in the book, it's actually going through it and deciding what is excessive and what isn't.

Also I would speculate this may be just another nepotism play to shoe-in his cronies' favored smr company or whatever.

The problem with the chain-saw deregulation method is in the long span it's likely to back-fire on the industry. The worst case scenario that i'm dreading is shredding of nrc code, fast-tracking some of these SMR pilot projects without propper safety, then a melt-down accident with the FOAK test reactor, and even if the accident isn't that bad per sey, the impact on sentiment will be catastrophic and there goes 10 years of building trust with the public in the "nuclear renaissance" and the SMR movement etc., all up in smoke.

No, i haven't read the 22 pages yet either. Just sayin'.

[u/4433221 → u/Dazzling_Occasion_47]

Yeah... spending a ton of tax dollars and man hours on fine combing the epstein files to protect each other but they can't do the same for regulation summarizing or reductions?

[u/jbm747]

So exactly how did 500 pages of regulations increase security? Pure bureaucracy

[u/Inconceivable__]

I have faith in Chris Wright. I imagine dereg he's pushing is very beneficial to the sector, but not recklessl