Latest news with #NuclearRegulatoryCommission
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
US approves environmental review for Michigan nuclear plant restart
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. on Friday said Holtec's planned restart of the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan would not harm the environment, a needed step in its plan to become the first such plant to return from permanent shutdown. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted the environmental review of the Palisades reactor restart with the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office. Opponents of the restart had expressed concerns that steam generator tubes at Palisades are degraded because standard maintenance procedures were not followed when the plant went into shutdown. Holtec says it is plugging the tubes. The LPO, which supports nuclear projects that are unable to get bank loans, closed a $1.52 billion loan guarantee for the Palisades restart in September 2024. President Donald Trump's administration provided the third disbursement of that financing, nearly $47 million, in April. Power company Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab shut the 800-megawatt Palisades reactor in 2022, two weeks ahead of schedule over a glitch with a control rod. It had generated electricity for more than 50 years. Holtec bought the plant to decommission it, but now hopes to reopen it. U.S. power demand has been rising for the first time in two decades on the boom in data centers and artificial intelligence. Holtec says Palisades could reopen as soon as October. But it needs additional permits from the NRC. "Pending all federal reviews and approvals, our restart project is on track and on budget to bring Palisades back online by the fourth quarter of the year," said Holtec spokesperson Nick Culp. Alan Blind, engineering director at the plant from 2006 to 2013, said in an editorial this month that if steam generator problems lead to a shutdown, it would "erode public confidence, damage investor trust, and raise serious safety concerns." The NRC is reviewing Holtec's proposed repairs, said Scott Burnell, an agency spokesperson. "Holtec must demonstrate the Palisades steam generators will fulfill their safety functions before the plant restarts," Burnell said.
Forbes
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump Executive Orders Target Precautionary Nuclear, Climate Rules
Two recent Trump executive orders (EOs), issued on May 23, 2025, contain detailed legal language, but behind these technical terms lie significant policy shifts confronting the precautionary principle. The orders—Restoring Gold Standard Science and Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—directly challenge longstanding assumptions used in regulations. Specifically, the Gold Standard Science order emphasizes transparency in assumptions, instructing government employees not to rely unnecessarily on highly unlikely or overly precautionary scenarios. The second executive order calls on the NRC to 'adopt science-based radiation limits,' rather than relying on precautionary safety models that have 'tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion.' These changes have wide-ranging implications for environmental and climate science, as well as for the energy sector. Consider some examples from the EOs to see how scientific data impacts regulatory decisions. NOAA's fisheries division has the authority to issue permits allowing lobster fisheries to operate. The issue at hand is that lobster fishing gear can cause the endangered North Atlantic right whale to become entangled in fishing gear, prompting the agency to prescribe a switch to ropeless fishing methods, reducing entanglement risk by 98%. However, this method involves very expensive gear upgrades, which would render the lobster industry uncompetitive. NOAA's recommendation was based primarily on whale birth rate data from 2010 to 2018, a period during which birth rates were relatively low. Data from periods before or after those dates, when whale birth rates were higher, were not considered. The Maine lobster fisheries took the issue to court. Initially, the ruling favored the regulator, but the decision was later overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals, which concluded that 'the agency's decision to seek out the worst-case scenario skewed its approach to the evidence.' A similar precautionary approach is seen in climate policy. The EO specifically critiques the use of the worst-case warming scenario known as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, which predicts an increase in temperatures by about 8.5°F by the end of the century. Although we do not know precisely how much temperatures will rise, current science suggests that RCP 8.5 is at the high end of potential warming scenarios, and more moderate outcomes are far more likely. Unless updated by the best available science, the EO directs agencies not to base regulatory decisions on such extreme scenarios. The nuclear EO also criticized the existing precautionary approach, asserting that a 'myopic policy of minimizing even trivial risks ignores the reality that substitute forms of energy production also carry risk, such as pollution with potentially deleterious health effects.' The cost of driving risks to zero is high but often invisible—like an iceberg. What we see is the agency ostensibly protecting public health by reducing radiation exposure. What remains unseen is how such policies stifle technological advances and limit our access to clean, reliable baseload power from nuclear plants. While the U.S. currently operates the largest nuclear fleet globally, only two reactors have begun commercial operations in recent decades. Beyond domestic impacts, this trend has clear geopolitical implications as the U.S. concedes nuclear leadership to nations such as China, Russia, and South Korea. Does this mean we do not care about right whales, climate impacts, or potential radiation exposure? This is a common fallacy perpetuated by those seeking to drive risks as close to zero as possible. Risk reductions always come at a cost. Just as it doesn't make sense to reduce pollution to zero (since we still want access to goods and services), it also doesn't make sense to drive all risks to zero. Rather than relying on worst-case scenarios, it is more prudent to find a middle ground and act based on the most likely scenarios, which usually come at a significantly lower cost. This is not to suggest malicious intent by regulatory agencies. Rather, they are following decades-old premises rooted in precautionary principles that significantly slow permitting processes, despite occasional successes. This week, the NRC approved NuScale's design for a 77-megawatt, 6-module small modular reactor plant. While the agency employs knowledgeable public servants, they operate under the stifling dictates of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the "as low as reasonably achievable" standard. The LNT model assumes every bit of radiation is harmful and thus must be minimized, disregarding the cell's capacity to repair itself after minor radiation exposure. In reality, people living in areas with naturally higher background radiation don't show the health problems that current radiation safety models predict they should have. The executive order explicitly states that these models 'lack sound scientific basis.' Will agencies respond positively to the president's directives? This is not the first time the NRC has been asked to reconsider the LNT model. Nuclear pundit Jack Devanney pointed out that "the NRC has been asked to reconsider LNT at least three times. The NRC pondered the issue for three years before proclaiming—to no one's surprise—that it was sticking with LNT.' In other words, the nuclear EO might lack sufficient teeth to force the agencies to change their standard operating practices. Yet, as Adam Stein, Director for Nuclear Energy Innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, put it, "the executive orders say the quiet part out loud." Stein also noted that because the NRC was merely asked to reconsider rather than explicitly abandon its precautionary models, the EOs represented a "big missed opportunity to finally align the NRC with a modern, risk-informed approach." Finally, the precautionary principle is widespread not just federally, but at the state level as well. For example, the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which previously supplied New York City with power, was ordered to shut down due to concerns about the health of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River—not because of radiation concerns, but rather fears that cooling water from the nuclear plant could harm sturgeon eggs. The worst-case scenario was that fish populations might be damaged. Ultimately, it was New York State's energy security, emissions profile, and local employment that were harmed. In the end, obscure scientific concepts drive many regulatory decisions, which are often justified under the guise of protecting public health or the environment. A gold standard in science means all scientific decisions are transparent, clearly outlining assumptions, and ensuring that while worst-case scenarios are considered, they do not solely drive our policy-making.
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
NuScale Wins US Approval for Small Nuclear Reactor Design
NuScale Power Corp. has won US approval for a small nuclear reactor design. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave the green light to the company's 77-megawatt reactor design, according to a statement Thursday. The Portland, Oregon-based company won similar approval in 2020 for a smaller, 60-megawatt version of the reactor, a first for the industry.
Reuters
2 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
US approves bigger nuclear reactor design for NuScale, document says
WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved NuScale Power's (SMR.N), opens new tab design for a 77 megawatt reactor, a document on the regulator's web site said on Thursday, completing one hurdle the company needs to build a small modular reactor. NuScale had originally sought and received NRC approval for a smaller 50 MW reactor design. The company sought a bigger 77 MW design to improve economics and performance of its planned small modular reactors (SMRs). Backers of nuclear power say SMRs will be safer from proliferation risks and can reduce costs for multiple plants because they can be built in a factory instead of onsite. Critics of SMRs say they will be more expensive to operate than conventional reactors, which are larger and have economy of scale. NuScale, the only U.S. company with an approved design, wants to build the country's first SMR. But in 2023 it axed its first project with a municipal power group in Utah, despite a U.S. government promise of $1.35 billion in funding over 10 years for the plant, known as the Carbon Free Power Project. As costs rose, several towns had pulled out of the project.
Politico
2 days ago
- Business
- Politico
Trump's nuclear vision collides with Trump's actual policies
With help from Gabby Miller With a slate of splashy executive orders Friday, president Donald Trump promised to 'usher in a nuclear energy renaissance …providing a path forward for nuclear innovation.' By streamlining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, exploring building reactors on federal land and ordering the quadrupling of the U.S.' nuclear energy capacity, the administration moved to, as Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement, 'unshackle our civil nuclear energy industry and ensure it can meet this critical moment.' That all should be music to the ears of the burgeoning pro-nuclear revival, which has seen energy and infrastructure wonks across the political spectrum advocate for nuclear energy as a cleaner, scalable alternative to fossil fuels. But it also raises a question that is becoming familiar in the second Trump administration: How is this all supposed to happen amid Trump's radical cutbacks to research — to say nothing of government oversight or safety rules? As with similar administration goals on supercomputing, or innovation, or artificial intelligence, these big promises aren't happening in a policy vacuum. They're happening amid an all-fronts rollback of America's massive research and regulation infrastructure. Even some of those cheering the nuclear EOs are worried that Trump's bone-deep cuts to the federal government could doom the nuclear revival before it kicks off. The Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit cheerleader for advanced nuclear reactor development, took the moment to urge GOP-controlled Washington to 'adequately resource and staff DOE to meet this moment.' President and CEO Judi Greenwald wrote in a statement that Trump's cuts — actual and proposed — at the Department of Energy 'undermine the Department's efforts and make it harder to implement these executive orders.' The progressive pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute, in its own response to the EOs, enumerated the new staffing levels it would require just to license new plants, and worried that the EOs focused on regulatory overhaul 'threaten to reduce the NRC's workforce, independence, and resources.' Many of these nuclear boosters have noted — echoing the Secretary of Energy himself, in a hearing last week — that continued nuclear innovation could hinge on Congress continuing to fund the Loan Programs Office, an increasingly high-profile sub-office of the DOE responsible for funding experimental nuclear projects. Thomas Hochman, infrastructure director at the Foundation for American Innovation, in a conversation with POLITICO claimed some momentum for the pro-nuclear cadre's cause of the moment, saying, 'if things go the right way in Congress [the LPO] will continue to have authority.' Some nuclear-watchers are more explicitly worried that the EOs could backfire — specifically, that the Trump administration's anti-bureaucratic mission of overhauling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could lead to the kind of disaster that would threaten the fragile new bipartisan consensus around nuclear power. In an op-ed for The Hill published this morning, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Toby Dalton and Ariel Levite argued that the ADVANCE Act, passed in 2024, has already gone a long way toward overhauling licensing processes for new reactors and that the Trump administration risks gilding the lily. '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,' Dalton and Levite wrote, while concluding '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.' The nuclear revival has largely been inspired by the massive thirst for energy that cutting-edge technologies carry with them, from enormous AI data centers to semiconductor manufacturing to even cryptocurrency mining. Nuclear is an attractive, relatively clean option for solving these problems, with an attractive retrofuturist sheen to boot. It's always been a risky bet, though, given its unique safety concerns and steep costs — and that was in the pre-Trump days of relative policy stability. As even its allies have pointed out, the Trump administration's lurching, unpredictable approach — taking big, sometimes contradictory swings at issues of 'American greatness' — could backfire in a major way, especially when public safety is a factor. But with so much wind at their sails, and relatively few bipartisan, technocratic wins to be had in the early Trump era, nuclear supporters are still willing to be cautiously optimistic. 'I don't think any of that stuff is sort of like, you know, so complex as to be unachievable,' Hochman said. 'The worst possible outcome is just that nothing really gets done.' Gabby Miller contributed to this report. doge as law Congress could finally attempt to enshrine some of DOGE's budget cuts into law. POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill and Jennifer Scholtes reported today that the White House plans to send a 'small package of spending cuts' to Congress next week, formalizing $9.4 billion of DOGE's identified budget cuts. Two anonymous Republicans said the cuts will target NPR, PBS and the foreign aid agencies that the Trump administration has already cut deeply. The package will comprise only a portion of the $1.6 trillion in yearly discretionary spending planned by Congress, and it falls far short of the trillions of dollars Elon Musk promised to cut from the federal budget with DOGE. It's no guarantee that even these reductions will pass: Cuts to public media have proved anathema to many Republicans in the past, and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told POLITICO 'Nebraska public media does a good job so I'm not inclined … I'll consider it.' fda ai chief The Food and Drug Administration has a new AI chief. POLITICO's Ruth Reader reported Tuesday for Pro subscribers that Shantanu Nundy, physician and former chief medical officer for care navigator Accolade Health, will spearhead AI policy at the FDA. Nundy is a primary care physician in Virginia, and has worked for years in digital health startups. Prior to his work at Accolade Health, he directed the nonprofit arm of the Andreessen Horowitz-backed Human Diagnosis Project, which helped doctors provide expertise to one another. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Derek Robertson (drobertson@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
