It is not per reactor, that is 1 in over in a million in the generic approach.

So, your claim that the margin is already there is false.

OK, so they are right and Wald reported accurately. NRC already agrees with the report. It hardly seems late if it is a report requested by congress with a particular scope. NAS is usually pretty thorough. It hardly seems wrong for congress to want to know about this since the US shoulders nearly all the risk for an accident through the huge Price Anderson subsidy.

What?

It was shuttered because it was not built to withstand the earthquake risk. The margin was not there.

But isn't that what the National Academy of Sciences is saying in the report? Platts reports he same. http://www.platts.com/latest-n... "US nuclear regulators and industry officials must do more to protect reactors from extreme, but unlikely, events like the earthquake and tsunami that caused the accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, the National Academy of Sciences recommended in report issued Thursday."

An NRC inspector had a very hard time waking a guard up at Indian Point a few years back.

Accounted for that.

Not so for Humboldt Bay Reactor.

Matthew Wald does his homework and reports pretty accurately. Perhaps you should give some examples where he has misread the report.

It really harms the credibility of the NRC when their risk calculation come to a accident every ten thousand years while the real world rate is one every 18 years. There are ten or more near misses each year http://www.ucsusa.org/news/pre... so nuclear plants are operating far outside the claimed safety envelope.

By all means, repeal the Price Anderson subsidy and require market insurance rates be paid.

You condone murder.... King George felt that way too.

You should look at the second part of their name. They oppose violence.

Didn't catch the murder in there I guess.