Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
N.R.C. Skimps on Financial Oversight, Audit Says
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/n-r-c-falls-short-on-financial-oversight-audit-says/
May 6, 2012, 9:15 am
N.R.C. Skimps on Financial Oversight, Audit Says
By MATTHEW L. WALD
The government does a poor job of estimating what it will cost to tear down a nuclear reactor, Congressional auditors say, and it may not be overseeing plant owners well enough to assure that they set aside enough money to do the job.
<snip>
The study was requested by Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who led a subcommittee with oversight over the commission when his party controlled the House. He pointed out that all of the 104 reactors now operating would eventually need to be decommissioned, and said that having enough money for the task was critical for protecting health and safety.
“Decommissioning funds are the 401(k)’s for America’s nuclear power plants, and this new G.A.O. report indicates that the nation’s plants are headed for a retirement meltdown,’’ he said. “The N.R.C. appears to be inaccurately estimating the costs of decommissioning the nation’s nuclear power plants and inadequately ensuring that owners are financially planning for the eventual shutdown of these plants.”
<snip>
The G.A.O. is not alone in faulting the commission’s financial methodology. Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and frequent critic, evaluated the commission’s decommissioning estimate for Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant on Vermont’s border with New Hampshire and Massachusetts. He found that the commission’s estimates were sometimes lower for boiling water reactors, a type that will have a larger volume of radioactive debris, than for pressurized water reactors, which keep the radioactive materials in a smaller area.
<snip>
May 6, 2012, 9:15 am
N.R.C. Skimps on Financial Oversight, Audit Says
By MATTHEW L. WALD
The government does a poor job of estimating what it will cost to tear down a nuclear reactor, Congressional auditors say, and it may not be overseeing plant owners well enough to assure that they set aside enough money to do the job.
<snip>
The study was requested by Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who led a subcommittee with oversight over the commission when his party controlled the House. He pointed out that all of the 104 reactors now operating would eventually need to be decommissioned, and said that having enough money for the task was critical for protecting health and safety.
“Decommissioning funds are the 401(k)’s for America’s nuclear power plants, and this new G.A.O. report indicates that the nation’s plants are headed for a retirement meltdown,’’ he said. “The N.R.C. appears to be inaccurately estimating the costs of decommissioning the nation’s nuclear power plants and inadequately ensuring that owners are financially planning for the eventual shutdown of these plants.”
<snip>
The G.A.O. is not alone in faulting the commission’s financial methodology. Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and frequent critic, evaluated the commission’s decommissioning estimate for Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant on Vermont’s border with New Hampshire and Massachusetts. He found that the commission’s estimates were sometimes lower for boiling water reactors, a type that will have a larger volume of radioactive debris, than for pressurized water reactors, which keep the radioactive materials in a smaller area.
<snip>
The report is at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-258
