Thankfully, we still have an adversarial press that does its job on occasion:

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

…

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are “unnecessarily conservative.”

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.

“That's what they say for everything, whether that's the case or not,” said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. “Every time you turn around, they say `We have all this built-in conservatism.'”

Despite a radioactive cloud of security and safety concerns at our own Vermont Yankee, the state is barred from being involved with plant operations.  Fortunately we can still consider economic issues–the cost of storing spent fuel, how to create more jobs–when deciding whether to allow VY to continue operating past its expiration date.

Yet one has to wonder at the rhetoric that I heard a lot during the last campaign about leaving it all to the NRC.  If they say it's safe, then who are we to shut down the plant?  Well, we might not be able to look at plant reliability per se, but we can certainly have the veracity of its operator and the regulatory body who oversees Entergy in mind when we decide not to issue a Certificate.  At this point, their claims about anything related to Vermont Yankee's continued operation ring hollow.

ntodd