I agree that you should perform regular periodic inspections. I think that twenty years is probably too long of an interval. If you look at the BWR VIP recommendations vessels are actually inspected on a two year frequency, with more in depth inspections on a 20 year frequency.

Everything in nuclear cost a huge pile of money. The 2 year inspection costs about $500,000. The technical analysis to support 20 years of continued operation contingent on satisfactory inspection results cost $3 - 4 million.

The process currently requires that licensee demonstrate using technical analysis that the vessel is fully capable of performing its design function for the entire licenses period. As long as technical analysis demonstrate that the vessel will continue to function, why not allow the plants to extend their license indefinitely? If the stress on the vessel due to cooldowns, heatups, and neutron flux is less than the margin for performing its design function, then preventing a extending license is an action based on fear not science.

A common misconception is that plants were only initially licensed for 40 years due to technical concerns. As it turns out the AEC (the predecessor to the NRC) just picked an arbitrary amount of time to issue operating licenses. There was not a technical basis to the 40 year time period. That being said, some manufactures may have used the 40 year time period as a design input for reactor designs. However there is no mysterious phenomenon that causes the reactor to turn into a pumpkin.

First, the title is very misleading. This is not a nuclear power plant. This is a chemical processing facility, that works with uranium (a fairly stable isotope with a half life of 704 million years). That is a big difference. If you leave a chemical processing facility in a safe condition, it tends to remain in a safe condition. If you walk away from a nuclear power plant that has had any significant power operation, then the decay heat continues to heat the core until it melts or action is taken to remove the heat. The risks of walking out on a chemical processing plant are far less than walking out on a nuclear power plant. This is just another example of yellow journalism, trying to sensationalize a story. Slashdot is better than that.

Next, this is not the only site that produces enriched uranium for use in nuclear power in the United States. As a worker in the industry I personally interviewed at two other site which do this kind of work: USEC inc. and Nuclear Fuel Services. In fact a quick search at www.nrc.gov provides a list of several fuel cycle facilities in the US: www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/fuel-cycle.

Oh no! I better not forget to turn of the oven!