Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
Saturday, March 8, 2025
Friday, March 7, 2025
[SocialMedia] SCI AMER - Killing a Nuclear Watchdog’s Independence Threatens Disaster -
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - (live links are in the original at the cited URL below. No firewall.)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/killing-a-nuclear-watchdogs-independence-threatens-disaster/
March 6, 2025
A Trump administration plan would end the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where similar oversight muzzling has led to nuclear disasters overseas
By Katy Huff, Paul Wilson & Michael Corradini edited by Dan Vergano
A Trump administration executive order is setting the U.S. on the fastest path to a nuclear accident.
Announced on February 18, the “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” executive order aims to bring independent regulatory agencies under the “supervision and control” of the president. Among them, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the watchdog that Americans rely on to hold nuclear energy companies accountable for avoiding reactor accidents and releases of radioactive material into the environment.
By demanding that the NRC cease to issue regulations and guidance without written permission from the president or the attorney general, the order effectively demands that nuclear safety take a back seat to politics.
As nuclear engineers, as well as former government and industry officials, we foresee that this proposed regulatory capture by the Executive Office of the President—where decisions are made for political reasons and not for the benefit of people served—will severely increase the risk of expensive, unexpected nuclear accidents in the U.S.
This is neither hypothetical nor hyperbole.
History provides too much frightening evidence to ignore. When Soviet leadership and its captured regulator prioritized national pride over safety, a known flaw in nuclear reactor control rods (which slow the rate of atomic fission in a reactor) went unchecked, safety protocols at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant went unheeded, and in 1986 the worst nuclear power accident in history resulted.
So too when “regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy responsible for its promotion,” the operators of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant failed to deploy countermeasures demanded by known seismic risks; they failed to plan appropriately for evacuation; and in 2011, they failed to avoid the second worst nuclear power accident in human history.
In 1974 Congress recognized the importance of independent nuclear oversight, reorganizing the Atomic Energy Commission into two distinct agencies: the Department of Energy, responsible for research, development and promotion of nuclear energy; and the NRC, to regulate and oversee the then-booming nuclear energy industry. Five NRC commissioners, each appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, work together to “formulate policies and regulations governing nuclear reactor and materials safety, issue orders to licensees, and adjudicate legal matters brought before [them].” The president has the authority to designate one of these commissioners as the chair, acting as the chief executive officer of the agency.
International consensus is clear about what works and what doesn’t in nuclear safety regulation. Most fundamentally, the regulator’s ability to ensure safe nuclear power operation requires independence, especially from entities with a conflict of interest. The International Atomic Energy Agency, humanity’s foremost authority on nuclear energy safety and security, is clear that governments must ensure that the regulatory body is not influenced by “entities having responsibilities or interests that could unduly influence its decision making.” Failure to maintain regulatory independence from commercial, political and ideological influence is not accountability. It is instead regulatory capture.
Both President Trump and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, by virtue of their offices, have responsibilities and interests that demand efforts to expand nuclear power. The country’s continued prosperity relies heavily on secure access to reliable energy, and nuclear energy has a unique role in meeting our energy demands. Nuclear energy is one of the nine pillars of Wright’s secretarial order calling for action to “unleash American Energy.” In a recent CNBC interview, when describing his optimism for growth in nuclear energy, Wright recently declared, “Do we need some government out of the way to make it work economically? Absolutely, but that’s what America is about.”
That’s true only if industrial accidents are also what America is about. In reality an independent regulator plays a fundamental role in generating public confidence in the safe and secure deployment of nuclear technology. While discussions about the effectiveness of the agency are appropriate, such discussions never question the importance of its continued independence. Even for officials in the Office of Nuclear Energy at DOE, the independence of the NRC is a red line no one would ever consider crossing, precisely because DOE’s role involves the enthusiastic promotion of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy relies on precision technology and an unwavering dedication to safety, so regulating it is a serious technical undertaking meant to shield us from unwanted radiological consequences. The U.S. has historically been a global leader in nuclear regulatory practices and principles that uphold the highest standards of safety globally. A critical component of their operation is independence from conflicting motives. Nuclear safety is too important to undermine through uninformed political actions. Regulatory capture by industry, politics or the whims of an individual is not merely dangerous—it is the primary cause of the two worst nuclear reactor accidents the world has known. We cannot allow this to occur in the U.S.
The NRC must remain independent to provide the public confidence in the safe implementation of this important technology.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Thursday, March 6, 2025
Wednesday, March 5, 2025
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Monday, March 3, 2025
Sunday, March 2, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)