In the MAGA rush to cut treaties, laws, regulations, taxes, federal employees, grants, humanitarian aid worldwide, etc., who will be making sure no one dumps toxic radioactive wastes?
According to the EPA, “more than 55,000 containers of radioactive wastes were dumped at three ocean sites in the Pacific Ocean between 1946 and 1970. Almost 34,000 containers of radioactive wastes were dumped at three ocean sites off the East Coast of the United States from 1951 to 1962.”
By the 1970s, the United States and other countries became increasingly concerned about the environmental impacts of human activities on the marine environment, including the uncontrolled disposal of wastes into the ocean. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter of 1972, known as the London Convention, is one of the first international agreements for the protection of the marine environment from human activities.
Currently, some very influential, powerful people see regulations as ‘red-tape’ and bureaucratic roadblocks. According to an article in the New York Times:
The regulatory process is often criticized as onerous and time-consuming and the idea of letting all government regulations expire periodically has been promoted in conservative circles for years. The idea may have gotten a recent boost from Elon Musk, the billionaire adviser to Mr. Trump. “Regulations, basically, should be default gone…And if it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, we can always add it back in.”
Wow. So little respect and understanding for how regulations are created to protect our lives and environment- usually after a major disaster occurs. So the “thinking” is to remove existing regulations until the next avoidable calamity occurs? Think again: it will be too little too late to reintroduce regulatory requirements after the next event. Maybe the MAGA people hope no one is watching or even cares about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; maybe they only want individual freedom - as in nothing left to lose?
Previously, I wrote a 10 part blog on the nuclear fuel cycle to share my experiences including working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the importance of regulations that help to mitigate hazards and keep us all safe. By the way, independent Commissions are created by Congress and are not located in the Executive Branch.
On another blog, I share news from my interview with ProPublica on how uranium mills have impacted groundwater including polluting drinking water for several Native American tribes.
Yesterday, I joined a public meeting held by NRC on Duke Power’s process for siting a new nuclear power plant in northwestern North Carolina. Without any regulatory requirements and oversight, the company could do whatever they want. Check out all the fines imposed by NRC even with a vigilant regulator according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. The $5.4 million fine to the owner of Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Cleveland initiated a larger corruption settlement for $230 million due to fraud. For information on accidents and this ‘near miss’ meltdown, see my blog.
MSNBC’s Ari Melber on this week’s broadcast reported on efforts by Trump and Musk to cut federal regulations that agencies use to enforce numerous laws. He shows examples of how lax regulations led to the 2008 housing crisis, the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and industry polluting drinking water. CLICK TO SEE BROADCAST!
Also this week I checked Facebook and noticed my grad school geologist friend Janet reposted the following information from Curtis Mahon who’s a wildlife researcher and photographer and might not be aware of how the administration is cutting regulations for the nuclear industry as well:
“To my many friends who thought it wouldn't happen, guess what, it has happened! Donald Trump has dropped the environmental destruction nuke of an EO, planning to sunset ALL environmental regulations made in the last 100 years. And I mean ALL. https://www.whitehouse.gov/.../zero-based-regulatory.../
The Endangered Species Act. Gone. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Gone. The Marine Mammal Protection Act. Gone. The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Gone. The Bald Eagle Protection Act. Gone! You name it, it's gone.
To remind those friends why we have these laws, I'm going to try to put them into terms which anyone can understand, money.
The Endangered Species Act is literally the founding, central pillar of modern conservation globally. It's hard to list the accomplishments of this act as it is so vast. It directly protects and calls for plans to raise the populations of rare species. It's directly responsible for the comeback of many iconic species, such as the Bald Eagle, the Peregrine Falcon, the California Condor, and a host of others. Talk about return on investment, the amount of money spent vs the amount gained from people wishing to just see iconic rare species is in the billions of dollars. For what would a visit to the grand canyon be without seeing a conder soar over or a visit to Yellowstone without seeing wolves and bison. People do whole drives across the country just for these experiences and that's what the ESA is about. Lots of revenue there.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was one of the first environmental laws every made, and bans the harm or collection of all non-game birds in America. It was implemented in a time when hunters we shooting everything to turn them into hats, from songbirds to puffins to herons to albatross. The banning of this and subsequent restoration efforts lead to dramatic increases in bird populations and continue to protect them from harm. In just one example, consider a puffin. In Maine, every tourist I talk to wants to see two things, lobster and puffins. They were once hunted to near extinction in the US and are now a central pillar to the economy of an ENTIRE STATE. Thousands of people a DAY take expensive boat trips for puffins and that's at risk without these regulations, not to mention cuts to NOAA.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act protects whales from being killed or harmed and lead to the global war on whaling. Now because of it, America watches whales! You can go on a whale watch in nearly every coastal city in America and it generates HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in tourism and employs thousands of people. We hurt whales, we hurt our pockets and jobs.
The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act allows the government to enter agreements with states and plan and fund ways to increase the populations of migratory fish. It has direct benefits to anglers across the country, funding 50% of initiatives for things like stocking and habitat restoration in major fisheries such as both Atlantic and Pacific Salmon, Trout, Striped Bass, American Shad, and Sturgeon.
And removing the Bald Eagle Protection Act! I thought we loved eagle guys? What's more American than a Bald Eagle, and they want to remove protections for them? Many older Americans can probably remember a time when they never saw Bald Eagles. Now you can see them commonly in nearly every state! That's a direct result of the Endangered Species Act and Bald Eagle Protection Act.
These are just a few of the laws the Republican party wishes to remove. All have proven track records of benefiting Americans, both monetarily through supporting major American industries worth billions of dollars and employing hundreds of thousands of Americans and spiritually as corner stones of the country's wilderness. The removal of these protections is peak short term gains over long term profits.
If you don't like it, there's a lot you can do. Call your representatives. It feels like yelling to void but we've seen a handful of senators pushed to action by your voices. This matters regardless of the political party of your representatives. Also, get out and protest if you can. The next big one is April 19th. Search for your local 50501 group to see where the protests were at. It's incredibly empowering to get out and be a part of a movement with thousands of people in your town, and millions nationwide. See you in the streets.”
One correction that I found in the comments section:
“Yes, but it's actually the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. https://www.fws.gov/law/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.”
Please also see my SOS blog from February 5th featuring the bald eagle before I could imagine all regs would be cut. We cannot allow pirates to steal everything away from us and the US!
Update: May 11, 2025
On Friday, NPR reported that Trump tightens control of independent agency overseeing nuclear safety:
“Going forward, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must send new rules regarding reactor safety to the White House, where they will be reviewed and possibly edited. That is a radical departure for the watchdog agency, which historically has been among the most independent in the government. The new procedures for White House review have been in the works for months, but they were just recently finalized and are now in full effect.”
One of my Facebook groups includes former NRC employees who are responding to this very alarming news:
Here are some of the comments posted so far:
JW wrote: “I'm sure many folks in this group have seen reports regarding the order that all rules will now be reviewed and approved by the White House. I am curious what people here think of that plan. I was not a rulemaking expert, by any means, but questions like "how does the Administrative Procedures Act apply?" occur to me.”
GW replied: “Surely the public understands that rules for complex technologies requre expertise and extensive technical review and approval. Simple words like "should" and "shall" in a rule or regulation can mean the difference between a safe operating nuclear power plant and one that releases radioactive matterial to the environment. Relegating final review and approval of the kind or regulations promulgated by NRC, to a loyal Trump supporter or Trump himself would greatly reduce the confidence the public deserves when they agree to permit nuclear power plant in their jurisdiction.”
DP replied: “RIF the staff and issue licenses faster. Right. Today it’s rules, later it will be SERs. It’s a slippery slope. So much for independence. Staff will be afraid of filing a DPO concerning anything that comes from the WH for fear of losing their job. That is of course, if there remains a meaningful DPO process. I just hope that no matter what happens, that safety isn’t affected.”
JL replied: “This is clearly disappointing. Hope the Commissioners exercise their independence and refuse to comply with an illegal executive order recognizing they may be removed. Eventually the Supreme Court will need to address the independence issue and the standards for removing commissioners.”
JW replied: “For my own part, I can’t help but think of a couple times I stuck my neck out on what I believed to be misguided regulatory actions. What fate awaits a staff member who raises an uncomfortable issue in this new scheme? The agency has long had challenges with an “open and collaborative work environment,” or whatever they call it these days, and the intervention of the White House won’t improve that situation. I also wonder how they envision responding to emergent issues, like a late night emergency tech spec or temporary non-compliance.”
Former NRC Commissioner Stephen G Burns stated “I am deeply concerned about this move. Here's my post on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/.../urn:li:activity.../”
AR replied: “How does anyone in the White House, including the top brass there, know anything technical about NRC rules and the basis for them! What a farce having the White House reviewing and approving rules. But it doesn't surprise me, considering the myriad of other inane actions they are taking.”
WL: “There's a Commissioners office, a Staff Organization, 4 regional offices a Navsea Nuclear Reactors 08 Div and a USA Dept of Energy. Is there any duplication? How many times has the Staff been reorganized? Will our Federal Energy Policy permit Small Modular Reactors? Could the White House deal with the Intervenors like we did in the past? I remember the SRP, GDC, Part 50, Tech Specs, Sholly Notices, and the Reg Guides..will they all be reviewed in the Oval Office. Turn it all over to AI.”
JD wrote: “Having spent 20 years at the NRC, I can confidently say that overall NRC does a really good job of balancing reasonable public health and safety with that of efficiency and commercial needs. All of the great people I previously worked with at the NRC are passionate and highly technically competent individuals who try hard to make good decisions for all involved stakeholders.
That said, after having now spent nearly a decade on the industry side, I feel that industry doesn’t get enough credit for self-regulation of safety. Safety is a shared goal. After all, we need safe, reliable plants to deliver our electricity to our customers. It would not make good business sense to operate in an unsafe manner. In addition, the industry has the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) which continually challenges the industry to achieve higher and higher levels of excellence.
So, if done correctly and with the right technical conscience, there may be something to be gained by looking closely at some efficiency changes with a different set of eyes. In my opinion, if we are going to overhaul the regulations which have proved effective all these years, the DOGE should work with a coalition of NRC, industry, NEI, and INPO experts to carefully weigh the potential gains and/or consequences of such changes.
I worked as a contractor in the commercial nuclear field and at NRC for 31 years and completely agree that both industry and NRC pursue the same goal - safety. However, I think just knowing that there is an independent regulator who will be reviewing industry submittals contributes to the quality of industry safety analyses which leads to the industry having a good safety record.”
LC wrote: “Can you imagine them reading and understanding the complexity of the technical issues and regulatory complications etc. It has not been uncommon for the NRC to come under attack by both parties over the years-too much regulation or not enough regulation-so it goes. The NRC is the leading nuclear regulator in the world!”
CA stated: “Agree. Defense in depth; redundancy for safety's sake is important. It will be awkward to look a foreign regulator in the eye after all the times NRC has stressed the importance of an independent regulator.”
I added: “NRC has been the “gold standard” of nuclear regulators worldwide. We can all recall or revisit cases like Davis-Besse’s near-miss meltdown, corporate fraud and NRC fines. I suggest retired NRC employees compose an open letter to publicly share the essential facts about the “gold standard” as the President loves gold! I also recall our quick actions on increasing protections nationwide of all facilities after 9/11 and creating NSIR!”
DP replied, “you can add NRC’s role in investigating and requiring nation-wide improvements in: 1) fire protection after Browns Ferry fire; 2) maintenance after 1984 loss of feedwater event at Davis -Besse; 3) diesel-generator reliability of Transamerica Delaval diesel generators after crankshaft failure at Shoreham in the mid-1980s; and 4) site specific seismic upgrades at San Onofre 1 and Trojan. And our preemptive work preparing for Y2K in case something unforeseen happened.”
Linkedin Update June 14, 2025
From NRC Commissioner Christopher Hansen: This morning I released the following public statement:
“Late on Friday, President Trump terminated my position with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission without cause, contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.
My focus over the last five years has been to prepare the agency for anticipated change in the energy sector, while preserving the independence, integrity, and bipartisan nature of the world’s gold standard nuclear safety institution. It has been an honor to serve alongside the dedicated public servants at the NRC. I continue to have full trust and confidence in their commitment to serve the American people by protecting public health and safety and the environment.”
News Update June 17, 2025
Peter Behr with E&E News by Politico reports Trump firing of NRC commissioner jars agency’s leadership: Experts warn the dismissal of former Chair Chris Hanson could delay reviews of nuclear technology.
President Donald Trump’s abrupt firing Friday of Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Christopher Hanson marks another move by the White House to gain control of the independent agency as it heads into a critical review of safety regulations governing a lineup of new reactors.
Hanson was appointed to the NRC by Trump in 2020 and named chair by then-President Joe Biden in 2021. His renomination by Biden was approved by the Senate in 2024 with a large bipartisan majority. Hanson, however, was notified of his dismissal in a terse, two-sentence email from the White House that concluded, “Thank you for your service.”
Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, told POLITICO on Monday that “all organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction,” adding that Trump “reserves the right to remove employees within his own Executive Branch who exert his executive authority.” Hanson’s firing follows Trump’s removal of other leaders at independent agencies across the government, actions that are caught up in complex court actions.
Democrats in the House and Senate condemned Trump’s action, saying it violated the specific terms of the 1946 Atomic Energy Act that established the nation’s civilian nuclear energy program. The legislation, reaffirmed in 1954, says that a commissioner may be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Natural Resources, said Hanson’s removal was illegal. “Congress explicitly created the NRC as an independent agency, insulated from the whims of any president, knowing that was the only way to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the American people,” Pallone said in a statement.
Sen. Shelley Capito, (R-W.Va.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, did not respond to a request Monday for comment about Hanson’s firing.
“A competent, effective, and fully staffed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is essential to the rapid deployment of new reactors and advanced technologies,” the American Nuclear Society said in a statement. “The arbitrary removal of commissioners without due cause creates regulatory uncertainty that threatens to delay America’s nuclear energy expansion.”
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said his main concern is the quality of the staff’s ongoing technical safety reviews for the advanced small modular reactors now under development.
The NRC has been “racing through applications. They have an obligation to do a thorough review,” Lyman said. “If there are uncertainties that could potentially be safety issues, they can’t just drop the ball. I’m afraid the outcome of this is [going to be] a rubber stamp process.”
Trump, in a series of executive orders and statements last month, said the NRC has thrown roadblocks in front of the development of new reactor technologies with unnecessarily restrictive safety regulations and indefensibly slow processing of permits. But Hanson, in his term as chair, had led the commission staff in accelerating action on licensing issues, many observers conclude.
Former NRC Chair Stephen Burns, in an interview, said Hanson was in step with the directions enacted by Congress last year to streamline regulatory reviews. “He was undertaking those changes,” Burns said.
“It is unclear what the strategy here is in the long term,” Burns said, adding that the common speculation around the NRC now is that the commission’s remaining Democrats will soon follow Hanson.
Another former NRC chair, Richard Meserve, said in a statement, Trump’s action “reflects his intent to abolish the NRC as an independent agency,” he said. “Making the NRC subject to control by the White House means that questions will and should be raised as to whether its decisions on safety matters have been infected by political considerations.”
Meserve noted that Trump’s action comes after Trump’s executive order imposes new obligations on the NRC even as it’s reducing staffing. “Meeting the tight deadlines of the executive order was already going to be very challenging and is not facilitated by the needless disruption of the agency’s management,” Meserve said.
Adam Stein, director of nuclear energy and innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, a supporter of expanded nuclear power, had seen Trump’s executive orders as a positive accelerator of action on new reactor technologies. “The orders do not undermine safety,” he said then.
But on Monday, he expressed concern over the NRC’s ability to carry out the policy review if its leadership is uprooted. David Wright, the current NRC chair named by Trump, has not been renominated for a new term after his current one ends June 30, Stein noted. With Hanson gone, the commission membership will be reduced to three at the end of the month — two Democrats and one Republican.
Even if Wright is renominated, it is “virtually impossible” for him to receive quick Senate confirmation in the current political climate, Stein said.
His organization’s research reveals that the commission’s regulatory pace slows down when the membership drops to three representing different political parties, because a single commissioner can block a creation of a voting quorum, Stein said.
“The NRC remains critically in need of reform and modernization,” Stein said. “But those efforts will almost certainly fail if the result is to return to the partisan polarization around nuclear energy that crippled the industry over the last generation.”
Update June 24, 2025
Former NRC Officials sent a letter to key members of Congress in the House and Senate. The original is online in NRC ADAMS at ML25175A323
Update July 1, 2025
Mike King wrote on LinkedIn:
I’m honored to announce my promotion to Acting Executive Director for Operations at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the agency ensuring the safety and security of the nation’s civilian nuclear industry. This is a pivotal moment for nuclear energy, and I’m eager to lead the NRC in advancing innovation while upholding our commitment to public health and safety.
My deepest gratitude to Dr. Mirela Gavrilas for her exceptional leadership. Her dedication to excellence has strengthened the NRC, and I’m committed to building on her legacy.
As we navigate this transformative era, the talented and dedicated staff members at the NRC look forward to collaborating with our federal partners, industry leaders, and stakeholders to accelerate the safe deployment of advanced nuclear technologies. Let us shape a safe and secure energy future together.
Update July 8, 2025
First, the term for the NRC Chairman Wright has not been renewed effective July 1. NRC posted on LinkedIn:
As we wait for the U.S. Senate to act on former Chairman Wright’s nomination, we’ve instituted temporary changes to help us navigate this dynamic environment and – as always – meet our important mission. Last week, Wright delegated a variety of authorities to Commissioner Caputo, the longest tenured of the current Commission, and a few other authorities were assigned to career staff, including Acting EDO Mike King. Our three Commissioners then sent a statement to the workforce outlining their commitment to collegiality and the agency’s ongoing work in support of the Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act. Together, the Commission and the staff are meeting all ongoing responsibilities at this critical time. You can find the delegation of authorities at: https://lnkd.in/ebeWWRDy.
Second, three former NRC Commissioners wrote an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
Why the US must protect the independence of its nuclear regulatory
The NRC has protected the health and safety of Americans for 50 years without a single civilian reactor radiation-related death….We are concerned about the unintended safety consequences that a reduced NRC independence and a schedule-driven regulatory paradigm threaten to bring.
Third, did you know that NRC does not rely on taxpayer funds to operate and must recover fees from industry? When I worked there 20 years ago, the trade lobby Nuclear Energy Institute played a very heavy role in determining management promotions and how much we could bill for our labor to review applications. Here is the latest FY2025 Budget and Fees announcing a huge discount in NRC professional fees on new license applications. According to the law firm Morgan Lewis, who represented the company I worked with on the NuScale project):
The NRC recently published its FY 2025 final fee rule work papers detailing its budget requirements. The NRC’s FY 2025 budget is $994.1 million—no change from FY 2024. After accounting for excluded activities, the NRC must recover $808.8 million through service and annual fees. The NRC’s service and annual fees, codified in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171, respectively, are essential components of its overall funding structure. One notable change in the FY 2025 fee rule is the reduced hourly rate of $148 per hour for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants for certain activities—a more than 50% reduction from the previous full-cost professional hourly rate of $318.