Talk:Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Neutrality concern?

For some reason user CRGreathouse has tagged this entry for an NPOV concern, but no explanation is given. What's the issue? NRC OPA (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that there's been no update from CRGreathouse on the NPOV concern, I propose removing the tag. Comments? NRC OPA (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine. When a POV tag is placed, the exact nature of the problem must be explained on the Talk page. That clearly hasn't been done here, so the correct thing to do is remove the tag. Johnfos (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. NRC OPA (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is biased because the views cited are almost entirely negative. It provides no contrary opinions, so the dialogue is entirely one-sided. It provides no proof for the assertion that the NRC is captured by industry and relies entirely on hearsay. In addition, it fails to note instances when the NRC toughened regulations or made changes opposed by the industry. For example, the NRC required Westinghouse to modify the AP1000 design for better performance against airplane crashes and earthquakes.

It notes that the agency has been accused of regulatory capture by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Barack Obama, Greenpeace,Salon and the Brookings Institute. It does not mention that all of these organizations and people are left-of-center and have a history of both strongly supporting rival technologies and criticizing nuclear energy. It provides no opinions from other organizations or people. Nongkhai (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not "left of center". He may be to left of you, but he is a center-right politician. Huw Powell (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem particularly upset that the NRC has been seen as an example of regulatory capture. But many very credible sources have supported this contention, including Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, and a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton and co-chairman of the International Panel on Fissile Materials [1]. What has the NRC said about the issue? I can't see where they have refuted the allegation. Johnfos (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is highly biased to accuse the commission of regulatory capture in the opening description. A discussion under the "Criticisms" section or an independent "Regulatory Capture" section would be more appropriate. The introductory paragraph should be limited to discussions of the NRC's form and function. Otherwise it wou.ld be appropriate to include ridiculous bylines in other articles (e.g. "the Democratic party has been accused of being un-American by members of the Republican party") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.93.222 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section does actually say that the lead should summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies. Johnfos (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

At the moment there is no controversy in the article, just uncontroverted criticism. That is a problem. Rwflammang (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, the article might have been authored by Greenpeace. We can do better than that, can't we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.111.207 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate wanting reliable, balanced data here but as Johnfos points out it just isn't there. Even former NRC regulators have been very quick to criticize the agency sharply after they leave the agency. See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex-regulator-says-nuclear-reactors-in-united-states-are-flawed.html, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201303140050, and http://www.democraticunderground.com/112753536 for only a small sample.Bksovacool (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no section on criticism,Even though I found a couple tetritary sources citing the fact that it could be a "Lapdog group" -Russianarmy13 (Not logged on) I am too lazy to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.210.219 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As a nuclear power plant inspector, I found this description of the NRC to be somewhat criptic and biased almost to the point of being a scathing report instead of a factual description of the agency and its roles, not its faults and shortcomings whatever they may be. I always assumed that Wikipedia was not an opinionated source but a factual source for those of us looking for descriptions of information and not opinions. Having had direct contact with NRC inspectors, I've found them to be professional, ethical and very serious, almost to a fault, about the safety of the operational aspects, about nuclear energy operations and code and procedural adherance of all nuclear power plants in the US. In my humble opinion, I think that the behavioral aspects of all of the NRC inspectors I've encountered is a mirrored reflection of the NRC Agency itself and I don't agree with all of the negative spin, bias and criticism portrayed in the "description" of the NRC in this article.

Substantial changes

In the light of the above discussions, and tags on the article, substantial changes have been made to try to improve things. New material has been brought in, and existing material has been rearranged to better show its relevance and make the article more balanced. Please feel free to add a paragraph on Cohen and the NRC. If there are no objections, the tags at the top of the article could now be removed... Johnfos (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the revisions and feel that the tags should stay. It looks like some things have been rearranged, relabeled, and some new material added, but the problems outlined my myself and others above are still there. To reiterate some of these: There are issues of an overall strong anti-nuclear power bias in the article. All criticism is from an anti-nuclear perspective, and much of this strikes me as "coat-rack," with the NRC simply being used as a spring-board from which to air more general anti-nuclear commentary. There are also serious issues of undue weight, with the coverage of allegations of "regulatory capture" and other criticisms from anti-nuclear activists overshadowing more general information about the agency itself - its structure, history, responsibilities, etc. See FBI for comparison - another US federal agency which has often been criticized, but the criticism does not overshadow the more general coverage in the article. Specifically, I would say that (in order to avoid undue weight) criticism should not be included in the introduction, and that the amount of text devoted to criticism should not be longer than the more general information about the NRC. That would be a good start at least. -Helvetica (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate wanting reliable, balanced data here but as Johnfos points out it just isn't there. Even former NRC regulators have been very quick to criticize the agency sharply after they leave the agency. See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex-regulator-says-nuclear-reactors-in-united-states-are-flawed.html, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201303140050, and http://www.democraticunderground.com/112753536 for only a small sample.Bksovacool (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Bksovacool - Gregory Jaczko was hardly neutral. He had a definite anti-nuclear bias. He also quit in disgrace due to a scandal over harassment of women. Not the most reliable source for assessment of the agency. -Helvetica (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and clean up some of this mess. Huw Powell (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed this from the lead, it seems to be pretty all in the "crit" section (I renamed for clarity) though:

Some observers have criticized the Commission as an example of regulatory capture and the NRC has been accused of having conflicting roles (as regulator and "salesman") and doing an inadequate job by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Is everybody happy? Huw Powell (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I completed the shift to criticism section.--Polmandc (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)