No, if the rules specified that level of detail, they would probably be all right. The NRC rules appear to be higher level, and built around specifying "safety methodologies", and it's the translation of those safety methodologies to concrete (haha) level detail that gets messy.

Although to fair on the NRC, there was a case where, due to lack of experience, the contractor cast an enormous slab using the wrong rating of concrete, which then had to be removed at great expense and delay.

I haven't heard anything about interpretation of rules changing that causes problems. I have heard pleeeenty of stories like yours about the concrete.

And that's what it comes down to, EPC and design not understanding each other and mucking it up. Regulations and rules have not gotten in the way or caused ballooning budgets or massive delays.

IN fact, if the NRC had more regulations and required the design to specify how to construct and other parts, then perhaps these projects would not be in so much trouble. But instead all three sides of the deal seem intent on mucking up the construction and then suing each other at the end when everything falls apart.

And that's the problem with the entire nuclear construction industry: no accountability or reliability, and tooooons of corruption. Some of the execs involved with the Summer project are going to jail, and if executives in the US are going to jail for something other than medical regulations (the only regulations with real teeth for executives), then they are hopelessly corrupt.