Talk:Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Archive 1

Archive 1

How the commission works

Article has strong structure but little on how the commission works or its scope beyond explaning the difference between NRC and DOE areas. It's hard for me to step back, but it seems as if this article is missing some background on the licensing and regulatory process. (I take for granted what some of these things are, but does everyone?)

Why is there a sentence about guards at Peach Bottom sleeping on the job? This doesn't seem directly relevent to the section or the article. There is already mention of this in the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station article and it doesn't seem to add anything in this context. If there's no objection, I will delete the sentence in a couple of days. Scotto (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference removed. Scotto (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OPM survey

Is this notable enough to include in the article?

The Office of Personnel Management conducts biennial Human Capital Surveys, surveying federal employees' opinions of their own agencies. Based on the data collected, the OPM rates and ranks each agency in four categories, namely Leadership and Knowledge Management Index, Performance Index, Talent Index, and Job Satisfaction Index. In the 2008 survey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ranked number one in all four indexes.

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Commissioners

The chairman and one commissioner have bios on the official web site, and another commissioner whose term has expired also has a bio. Does he continue to serve, or not? There are two vacancies on the five member commission. The article should cover the commissioners, and link to separate bios. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which Region?

Does Region IV include Alaska, where the Galena Nuclear Power Plant is proposed? If so it (and Alaska) could be listed on the Region IV page Hugo999 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Response to whistleblower reports The article's claim that the NRC sends special teams to investigate whistleblowers' reports could not be farther from the truth. Like any other institution or corporation in the nuclear industry, the NRC is interested only in identifying and investigating the whistleblowers themselves, and when the NRC Enforcement Division's "special team" arrives, they make a bit point of refusing to even glance at any information, no matter how urgent the situation. An on-site inspection to verify the reported hazards is out of the question. Their only purpose in response to an offer of whistleblowers' information is to track down the whistleblower, presumably so they can be blacklisted or worse. My claim is based on direct involvement, witnessing how the NRC deals with contacts from whistleblowers.What I found in the article is certainly "true" according to Wiki guidelines, whereas my own experience was "not true" because it wasn't in the New York Times. But I think somethings the normal (non-Wiki) idea of true and false applies. What actually happens in real life, if it's 180º away from what "official" sources claim, should at least give us some doubts about just quoting lies. Chelydra (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits direct from the NRC

The NRC's Office of Public Affairs has opened a Wikipedia acocunt to provide updates on basic facts about the agency. Please excuse any clumsy editing during the Wiki learning process. NRC OPA (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Public blog

The NRC began a public blog on Jan. 31, 2011. The link has been added to the "External Links" section -- what would be an appropriate place to mention the blog in the body of the entry? NRC OPA (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Badly biased

This article assumes the truth of those who see the agency as being run by the industry. Since "Some observers have criticized the Commission as an example of regulatory capture", where are the opinions of those who disagree? Where is the response of the Commission? Also, the section on the controversy overwhelms the rest of the article; a neutral article would spend most of its space on discussing what the Commission does, its history, etc. Note that the controversy section doesn't simply argue that a lot of people oppose the Commission's actions - instead, it quotes people as evidence for the Commission's lack of independence, "to cite just three examples". This is original research. Also, if we reduced the criticism to a neutral level, the page would look more like an encyclopedia article and less like a news ticker. 2001:18E8:2:1020:749C:5B76:1D8E:3D22 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the History section needs expansion, so have added an expansion tag. But without WP:Reliable sources that back up what you say about bias, your comment is mere speculation. Please provide the best and most reputable authoritative sources available to support your concerns. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would love to talk about the NRC in glowing terms, but the sources just aren't there, are they. Here's another recent one [1] which talks about the inadequacies of the NRC. And another one [2] which talks about regulatory capture. This is the unfortunate reality.

-- Johnfos (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

POV/Coatrack

As noted by others on this talk page, the discussion of the NRC here is very one-sided. All criticism seems to come from the anti-nuclear side, eventhough pro-nuclear activists often criticize the NRC for ratcheting regulation which raised construction costs.

The article, and in particular the criticisms and post-Fukushima sections also seem to show signs of WP:COAT, whereby the topic of the NRC is simply used as a starting point for the airing of more general anti-nuclear commentary. -Helvetica (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm most interested in the statement that: "pro-nuclear activists often criticize the NRC for ratcheting regulation which raised construction costs". Please supply reliable references which support this statement. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No Problem, Johnfos, you can read about it here in chapter 9 of The Nuclear Energy Option, written by the award winning physicist Bernard L. Cohen: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html ~--Helvetica (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"See Also" Section

I've done a cleanup of the "see also" section so that it focuses on the most relevant related articles rather than having them hidden among a long list of names, books, and organizations which are only tangentially related. -Helvetica (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 [3]. 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.205.190 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 

new sections and expansions

I added quite a bit of info, because I too found the article cryptic or incomplete from my perspective of interacting with NRC as a private person in public.

I added what I consider bread and butter info for any public office: a section on organization, a section on record keeping (which must be mentioned for anyone serious in retrieving documents) and then expanded on the section training and accreditation, which consisted of 2 sentences, if I remember right, and I think I even left them.

I hope that everyone will be happy with that, including INPO members, NRC employees and "activists" ! .... and if not please discuss here and do not wholesale revert- it was a lot of work. I did my best to find online sources for every statement except for a single one (IAEA article from 1986, i believe, which was through Google and blacklisted; maybe someone has the patience to find a non-subscription access to the article?)--Wuerzele (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)