Latest news with #AtomicEnergyAct
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's executive orders could endanger America's nuclear renaissance
On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders designed to dramatically expand and accelerate U.S. development and construction of nuclear power plants, with emphasis on advanced reactors. The stated rationale for the administration's action is a combination of a domestic energy emergency and a desire to win the geopolitical competition against China and Russia. However, if implemented as written, these orders could undermine the very objective they intend to promote. The new orders assert that the failure of the U.S. to develop the nuclear energy sector in recent decades is primarily attributable to a myopic and misguided approach to nuclear regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the commission licenses the design, construction and operation of domestic nuclear and radiological facilities, including commercial nuclear power plants. The orders lay out a series of radical steps to scale back, reorient and even bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by having the Departments of Energy or Defense license non-commercial reactors to be built on their federal sites. In total, they aim to achieve rapid development of new nuclear designs and expedited construction of advanced nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also ordered to effect a 'wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance' within nine months. The desire to revamp the U.S. nuclear industrial base, encourage and support new nuclear power plant construction, and streamline Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing is welcome. However, it is neither new nor specific to the Trump administration. Under the ADVANCE Act passed by Congress in 2024, the commission had already begun to adapt its licensing processes for new reactor designs and recruit staff to do this work. Three flawed premises guide the new executive orders. First, they see the future of nuclear energy as fundamentally similar to that of other energy sources — whereby innovation in design and fast deployment are seen as inherent net positives, and bugs, if any, can be fixed later. The orders downplay or ignore the special magnitude of nuclear risks, the series of traumatic accidents suffered by leading nuclear power nations and the unique environmental and multi-generational footprint of nuclear waste and spent fuel. Second, nuclear regulation is mostly viewed as unduly burdensome, expensive, time-consuming and an outright drag on efficiency. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is explicitly blamed for 'throttling nuclear power development' in the U.S. In this regard, the orders fail to recognize a central purpose of regulation: to build and maintain trust in nuclear energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not presented the key obstacle to nuclear development in the U.S. And it is the key instrument to earn and keep trust in nuclear energy both nationally and internationally. Third, the executive orders grossly exaggerate the delays to new deployment legitimately attributable to excessive nuclear regulation. They underestimate the addition of time to market due to limitations on workforce availability, supply chain, financing, specialty fuels and community buy-in. What Americans need is confidence that any nuclear power plant built and operated in the U.S. is safe, secure and ultimately beneficial to American and host community prosperity. However, the net result of these executive orders, coupled with the additional impact of other administration actions to reform governmental regulatory processes to align with White House policies, is to risk public trust in nuclear energy. Downscaling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff, curtailing its political independence, compromising its technical integrity, scaling back its community engagement role or avoiding the commission outright introduces more uncertainty than inspires confidence in a nuclear renaissance. It would shatter the commission's credibility, nationwide and worldwide, to lower the risk standards it has been credibly using for years to minimize adverse radiation effects from nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the orders are bound to expedite the brain drain from the agency, whose credibility, speed and efficiency are all dependent on a quality workforce that firmly believes in its mission and inspires all others with its professionalism. They will reduce confidence in further extending the lives of aging nuclear power plants —many of which have been operating for 60 years or more — or in restarting mothballed plants. And they could unnecessarily increase public wariness that new nuclear designs will not be subjected to a rigorous and transparent review before their performance can be fully demonstrated and tested. The public reactions to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima underscore how critical trust is to sustaining public support for nuclear power. Here, the global setback to the credibility of the Federal Aviation Agency as a U.S. aerospace licensing authority is a poignant reminder, when it emerged after deadly crashes of Boeing's 737 Max, that the agency had delegated some of its licensing process to the company. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's credibility as a professional, independent regulator is also a major selling point for U.S. nuclear vendors seeking to win overseas contracts. At a time when the U.S. nuclear industry is trying to achieve economies of scale to bolster its competitiveness against Russian and Chinese firms (who can offer better financing and other perks), the commission's reputation as the gold standard in nuclear regulation is one of the few comparative American advantages. Yes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission operations should be more efficient. The effort to make them so is already well underway and could be further encouraged. But now — just as nuclear power nears a new dawn — is the worst possible time to damage the commission's capacity to credibly assess and faithfully, independently and publicly report its evaluations and licensing considerations and decisions. Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Ariel (Eli) Levite is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
7 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's executive orders could endanger America's nuclear renaissance
On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders designed to dramatically expand and accelerate U.S. development and construction of nuclear power plants, with emphasis on advanced reactors. The stated rationale for the administration's action is a combination of a domestic energy emergency and a desire to win the geopolitical competition against China and Russia. However, if implemented as written, these orders could undermine the very objective they intend to promote. The new orders assert that the failure of the U.S. to develop the nuclear energy sector in recent decades is primarily attributable to a myopic and misguided approach to nuclear regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Atomic Energy Act, the commission licenses the design, construction and operation of domestic nuclear and radiological facilities, including commercial nuclear power plants. The orders lay out a series of radical steps to scale back, reorient and even bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by having the Departments of Energy or Defense license non-commercial reactors to be built on their federal sites. In total, they aim to achieve rapid development of new nuclear designs and expedited construction of advanced nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also ordered to effect a 'wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance' within nine months. The desire to revamp the U.S. nuclear industrial base, encourage and support new nuclear power plant construction, and streamline Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing is welcome. However, it is neither new nor specific to the Trump administration. Under the ADVANCE Act passed by Congress in 2024, the commission had already begun to adapt its licensing processes for new reactor designs and recruit staff to do this work. Three flawed premises guide the new executive orders. First, they see the future of nuclear energy as fundamentally similar to that of other energy sources — whereby innovation in design and fast deployment are seen as inherent net positives, and bugs, if any, can be fixed later. The orders downplay or ignore the special magnitude of nuclear risks, the series of traumatic accidents suffered by leading nuclear power nations and the unique environmental and multi-generational footprint of nuclear waste and spent fuel. Second, nuclear regulation is mostly viewed as unduly burdensome, expensive, time-consuming and an outright drag on efficiency. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is explicitly blamed for 'throttling nuclear power development' in the U.S. In this regard, the orders fail to recognize a central purpose of regulation: to build and maintain trust in nuclear energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not presented the key obstacle to nuclear development in the U.S. And it is the key instrument to earn and keep trust in nuclear energy both nationally and internationally. Third, the executive orders grossly exaggerate the delays to new deployment legitimately attributable to excessive nuclear regulation. They underestimate the addition of time to market due to limitations on workforce availability, supply chain, financing, specialty fuels and community buy-in. What Americans need is confidence that any nuclear power plant built and operated in the U.S. is safe, secure and ultimately beneficial to American and host community prosperity. However, the net result of these executive orders, coupled with the additional impact of other administration actions to reform governmental regulatory processes to align with White House policies, is to risk public trust in nuclear energy. Downscaling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff, curtailing its political independence, compromising its technical integrity, scaling back its community engagement role or avoiding the commission outright introduces more uncertainty than inspires confidence in a nuclear renaissance. It would shatter the commission's credibility, nationwide and worldwide, to lower the risk standards it has been credibly using for years to minimize adverse radiation effects from nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the orders are bound to expedite the brain drain from the agency, whose credibility, speed and efficiency are all dependent on a quality workforce that firmly believes in its mission and inspires all others with its professionalism. They will reduce confidence in further extending the lives of aging nuclear power plants —many of which have been operating for 60 years or more — or in restarting mothballed plants. And they could unnecessarily increase public wariness that new nuclear designs will not be subjected to a rigorous and transparent review before their performance can be fully demonstrated and tested. The public reactions to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima underscore how critical trust is to sustaining public support for nuclear power. Here, the global setback to the credibility of the Federal Aviation Agency as a U.S. aerospace licensing authority is a poignant reminder, when it emerged after deadly crashes of Boeing's 737 Max, that the agency had delegated some of its licensing process to the company. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's credibility as a professional, independent regulator is also a major selling point for U.S. nuclear vendors seeking to win overseas contracts. At a time when the U.S. nuclear industry is trying to achieve economies of scale to bolster its competitiveness against Russian and Chinese firms (who can offer better financing and other perks), the commission's reputation as the gold standard in nuclear regulation is one of the few comparative American advantages. Yes, Nuclear Regulatory Commission operations should be more efficient. The effort to make them so is already well underway and could be further encouraged. But now — just as nuclear power nears a new dawn — is the worst possible time to damage the commission's capacity to credibly assess and faithfully, independently and publicly report its evaluations and licensing considerations and decisions. Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Ariel (Eli) Levite is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy?
On Friday, President Donald Trump issued four executive orders aimed at bolstering nuclear power production by addressing supply chain constraints, reforming advanced reactor testing at federal research facilities, and increasing nuclear reactor use on military bases. One of the most substantive orders calls for a "wholesale revision" of regulations governing nuclear power. Specifically, it directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish guidelines that would issue final decisions on all new construction and operation applications within 18 months—a process that currently takes years. Under the order, the NRC will work with the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to draft these rules, which are due next year. Under an executive order issued in February, executive and independent agencies are required to submit draft and final rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (an office within the OMB) for review and approval. This added layer of federal scrutiny could end up slowing down reactor approvals and make the NRC less efficient. It could also run contrary to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which established the NRC and its guidelines. "The NRC is designed to be an independent agency," Adam Stein, director of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Program at the Breakthrough Institute, tells Reason. "The President has control by appointing Commissioners and has the authority to remove Commissioners for cause." However, the Atomic Energy Act says that the commission shall execute the provisions of the law, "not the Commissioners in conjunction with other parts of the Executive branch," he says. Congress has also begun to address permitting delays at the NRC. In 2024, federal lawmakers passed the ADVANCE Act which, among other things, directs the NRC to establish a quicker permitting process for already-approved technologies (18 months to finish safety evaluations and environmental reviews and 25 months to issue a final decision). The agency is expected to issue these guidelines by September, according to the NRC website. However, the legislation stipulates that these guidelines be enforced to "the maximum extent possible." Jack Spencer, a senior energy researcher at The Heritage Foundation, thinks Trump's order could "bring additional accountability to the process." "Any big bureaucracy is going to be resistant to change," he says. "Legislation that basically puts it in their hands to achieve that reform, I think, will often fall short of the sorts of reform that are possible." Spencer thinks that subjecting the proposed reforms to another set of eyes "that will ask hard questions will be helpful in ensuring that real reform ultimately takes hold." This executive order also directs the NRC to reconsider its radiation standards for nuclear power plants and "adopt science-based radiation limits." Federal radiation regulations mandate nuclear power plants to emit levels of radiation that are "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) and are based on the linear no-threshold model, which assumes that no level of radiation risk is safe to the public. This framework is not scientific (humans are exposed to natural levels of radiation that are higher than those that nuclear power plants emit) and has pushed up costs for power plant operators for no public safety benefit. Spencer argues that fixing this rule is critical for reducing the nuclear industry's regulatory burden. "You can make the NRC the most efficient regulatory agency that has ever existed. And if the basis of its regulatory actions is not grounded in science, then who cares?" "That doesn't mean that you're reducing safety standards. It means that you're making safety standards in line with actual risks," he adds. This directive could face legal scrutiny. Stein, who has been critical of these standards, says "safety standards are almost never implemented through executive order. They usually require the agency to review and 'reconsider' if the standards are appropriate." With the NRC recently reaffirming its model for radiation standards in 2021, there "would need to be new scientific evidence to justify a change now that wouldn't be viewed as arbitrary by a court." Instead of rewriting ALARA standards, Stein suggests that the NRC could adopt radiation thresholds at nuclear power facilities that are defined in the Clean Air Act. Spencer recognizes these standards can't be changed through an executive order. "But it gets the conversation going. And it makes it more OK to talk about it, and it subjects the whole issue to daylight and makes people address it." Trump's order also sets a goal to effectively quadruple America's nuclear energy capacity and build 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050. Stein says this goal "can be a helpful signal to the market," but stating a goal does not "will it into existence." Juliann Edwards, chief development officer at The Nuclear Company, a startup aiming to streamline the deployment of nuclear power plants, agrees. "It's obtainable if you have the right leadership and you have the right behaviors and you're removing a lot of bureaucratic, unnecessary red tape, whether that be the federal level or the state level or through some regulatory regime." America's fleet of commercial nuclear power plants, while still safe and effective, is aging. Most of the reactors were built between 1967 and 1990—although two came online in 2023 and 2024, seven years delayed and $16 billion over budget. As the U.S. halted its construction, China's has accelerated. From 2014 to April 2024, the nation has added over 34 GW of nuclear capacity to its grid. "Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less," notes the Breakthrough Institute. China currently has 30 nuclear reactors under construction and is exporting its nuclear energy technology to developing nations. Nearly half of the world's nuclear power plant constructions are happening in China. While several factors have played into America's pivot away from nuclear power, including market structures, state bans on the energy source, and the introduction of cheap natural gas, the impact of federal regulations cannot be overstated. "Without doing a refresh and making sure [that] regulations are still applicable, you can get into a point, which we're seeing now, where it's extremely difficult to even cite and permit a piece of land," says Edwards. In the past 20 years, regulations have become so onerous that it takes five to seven years and close to $1 billion just to permit and cite a plot of land for nuclear energy development, according to Edwards. Streamlining the licensing process isn't a safety hazard but rather "a natural iteration that should be a part of our standard process with regulations." Regulations have long inhibited American nuclear energy. While Trump's order is well-intentioned to fix this issue, it is sure to face legal challenges—as many of the president's orders have. Still, the orders may be enough to get a more substantial conversation going. "I think anything that creates pressure toward reform is good," says Spencer. The post Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy? appeared first on
Indian Express
26-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Nuclear energy push needs to be accompanied by human capital surge
Written by Saurabh Todi The Union government is expected to introduce amendments to the nuclear liability law and the Atomic Energy Act in the upcoming monsoon session of parliament. This would be the first step towards delivering on the two significant commitments regarding the nuclear energy sector made in the Union Budget earlier this year. Reports suggest that the amendments to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, would effectively cap the liability of equipment vendors in the event of an accident, both in terms of limiting the monetary exposure to the original value of the contract. A time frame limitation on the applicability of this liability is also being proposed. Furthermore, amendments to the Atomic Energy Act are expected to enable private companies to enter the nuclear power industry as nuclear plant operators, possibly also allowing foreign companies to take minority equity stakes in nuclear power projects. These moves signal serious intent on the part of the government to deregulate the nuclear energy sector. Given the contentious nature of these amendments, especially relating to the nuclear liability law, they are bound to generate significant public debate. Therefore, it is prudent to reserve a substantial chunk of analysis on the impact of these amendments until the actual drafts are available for public scrutiny. However, there is little doubt that the sector is gearing up for reform. Therefore, sustained and focused efforts must be made to ensure that the Indian industry, academia and public are well prepared to materialise India's nuclear ambitions. In anticipation of the impending reforms and following the announcement of the National Nuclear Energy Mission, the Indian private sector is stepping up with significant investments and ambitious commitments towards the Indian nuclear energy sector. Interestingly, US regulators have granted regulatory approval to a US company to share small modular reactor (SMR) technology with Indian private players. India's earlier effort to diversify the nuclear energy sector has also seen some success. India's atomic energy regulator recently consented to four Indian-designed 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) at Banswara, Rajasthan. This nuclear plant would be developed by Anushakti Vidhyut Nigam Ltd (Ashvini), which was incorporated as a 51:49 JV (joint venture) between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) following the 2015 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act that allowed PSUs to set up nuclear power projects jointly with NPCIL. While efforts are being made to reform the nuclear energy sector and accelerate the construction of nuclear reactors, attention must be paid to building capacity and capability in allied sectors and domains, both upstream and downstream of the nuclear energy sector. To increase the nuclear energy capacity tenfold by 2047, India will need not just reactors but a huge pipeline of skilled professionals: Construction workers, nuclear engineers, inspectors, regulators, and researchers. India's current capacity to train and supply such specialised manpower is limited, and a significant push is needed to prevent shortages from becoming a serious bottleneck in a few years. Therefore, human resource development related to the nuclear energy sector must be prioritised. This can be achieved through focusing on two major aspects. First, incentives need to be provided to encourage students to enrol in specialised nuclear engineering and nuclear science programs. Currently, only a handful of universities in India offer these degrees. The University Grants Commission and the Department of Atomic Energy should cooperate to expand the availability of these degrees that can help train the skilled manpower needed to fuel India's nuclear ambitions. Second, there is a significant need to upgrade the existing infrastructure in colleges and universities to support and meet the increased demand. The Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) has the mandate and financial resources to address this bottleneck. Furthermore, given the private sector's interest and possible foreign participation, the scope for public-private partnership through the ANRF in the nuclear energy sector is immense. Finally, public perception and safety are significant considerations for the nuclear energy sector, much more than other energy sources. As India seeks to expand the adoption of nuclear energy, efforts must also be made to sensitise the public about its benefits, the safety record of Indian nuclear plants, and advancements in reactor design to minimise proliferation risks. Reforming the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) to make it an independent regulatory body would also be a notable step in this direction. The potential of nuclear energy in India largely depends on the extent to which the sector is deregulated and opened to private and foreign participation. While the proposed amendments are necessary, they are not sufficient. Realising India's nuclear ambitions will require sustained, focused efforts. The writer is a researcher associated with the Takshashila Institution, a policy think tank based in Bengaluru
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
India may allow up to 49% foreign direct investment in nuclear energy in phases
New Delhi: India could allow up to 49 per cent foreign direct investment in nuclear energy , but the cap would be relaxed only in phases. "We are open to allowing foreign investment... We can even go up to 49 per cent , but in tranches," a senior government official told ET. The government could in the initial phase only allow up to 26 per cent and raise it later after a review. ET had reported earlier that the proposed framework is also likely to stipulate majority ownership by the Indian partner in the venture. New Delhi plans to open up the strategic sector to private sector looking to increase its nuclear energy to 40 GW by 2035 from 8 GW now. The sector is not open to private participation, and it remains in the negative list for foreign direct investment. Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman in her February budget said that government would amend the Atomic Energy Act and Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, which will facilitate the entry of private players into the sector. "Development of at least 100 GW of nuclear energy by 2047 is essential for our energy transition efforts. For an active partnership with the private sector towards this goal, amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act will be taken up," she had said. She also said a Nuclear Energy Mission for research & development of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) with an outlay of ₹20,000 crore will be set up. At least five indigenously developed SMRs will be operationalised by 2033. The official said changes to the Acts are being firmed up and discussions are on with stakeholders. The government had set up committees comprising senior officials to finalise the changes to these Acts and the process is on, the official added. Foreign companies have shown interest in India's upcoming nuclear units, as per industry experts. Russian nuclear firm Rosatom has offered India the expertise to build small modular reactors (SMRs), apart from French state-owned firm EDF, an ET report had said in February. The government is also firming up the roadmap for 100 GW nuclear energy installed capacity by 2047, which will outline all technologies that could be deployed to achieve India's nuclear energy mission.
